Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: Jul 25, 2010 4:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: 69 or 81?

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1981-03-14.nak700.glassberg.motb.84826.sbeok.flac16

which was their best year? for those that want to pick one that begins with a 7 - just listen to this sugaree.

if you want to hear anything after I can't help you cause it doesn't play

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: august_wst Date: Jul 26, 2010 4:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Why don't you ask me something easy like "Which of your kids kid do you love more?"

I can only be as specific as to pick a "few" years: 1967, 1969, 1971, 1974, 1980, 1984, 1990, 1993.

I mean with the amount they changed as time went on there is sometimes very little that is similar among these years. I mean how can you really compare a '69 Dark Star -> St. Stephen -> Eleven -> Lovelight jam with a 1990 Playin' -> Uncle John's -> Terrapin -> MLB Jam?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

AW , I was at that show in Albany . It was magic . One of the best shows that I had the privilege to see . Set two many have heard , and the MLBJ can bring a tear of joy to your eye . Don't forget set one . The first 7 songs are gold , even WB . I do not think that is written often .

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1990-03-24.sbd.miller.107873.flac16

As a said above , every year has it's gems . Be it a set or 50 shows . And there is a high degree of emotional context which informs our opinion . '90 is prob. my 3rd fav. year . Why ? For me , it capped the promise of post coma JG . That GD wasn't just spinning in a rut , but some new gems were added to the canon ( my '90 is really from Sept. of '89 to Sept. of '90 ). When I look at it with a cold eye , '69 or '90 , it is not even close , for me , which I would choose .
Like what you like , love what you love , who am I to say for you ?
AW , '93 is not a fav. of mine . Link a few shows up . I can not listen to the whole deal ( time ) , but give me a few prime cuts . Thanks .

Edit - Thanks for the recs AW

This post was modified by micah6vs8 on 2010-07-26 18:49:34

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: august_wst Date: Jul 26, 2010 9:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

I was there as well. I am an east coast guy and hit just about every appearance at the old Knick. Great show. Great run for that matter.

Anyway, try this Knick show

Casey Jones, Days Between, and Eyes are a few of the highlights

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1993-03-27.sbd.nawrocki.555.sbeok.shnf

This post was modified by august_wst on 2010-07-26 16:05:51

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: clementinescaboose Date: Jul 26, 2010 10:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

LOL Althea, i only wish we could do this like we do w/ tapes!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Science fiction movie plot: Time machine is invented, but greedy corporations grab the patents on various years, the way they're trying to do now with medicinal plants from indigenous cultures.

Intrepid Deadheads desperate for a trip to the 60s and early 70s get around the corporations by trading years. Drama ensues ... tie-dye colored laser fights, Deadheads leaping buildings, a revitalized Jerry breaks into corporate HQ with his guitar on full blast, a la Back to the Future, and melts a few corporate minds ...

If any sci-fi writers are on board here, I want full credit for this when it comes out :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jul 26, 2010 10:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

yeah 3-27-93 is definitely a pretty good latter day show.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 26, 2010 10:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

I am enjoying this.

Why don't people like Walkin' Blues? I love that song. I think it's anti-Bob bias :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

It is a great song, unfortunately it can't compare to the original by Robert Johnson which ruins it for me. There is some Robert Johnson here at the archive although not Walkin' Blues. But if you give this a listen you may see why Bob's version can't stand up.

http://www.archive.org/details/RobertJohnsonMp3AudioSongs


btw Bob is not alone, Eric Clapton has said that he regrets what he did to Johnson's Crossroad Blues with Cream.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:39am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Thanks ...

Here it is on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2-EL6Pk2L0

Okay. But I still like Bob's version. I know it's an ignoramus opinion, but hey if I'm willing to admit I like this show from 1990, I know I'll lose all credibility with some folks, but I do like it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:44am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

I think if you like a show from '90 and were not willing to admit it you would lose credibility with a lot more folks.....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

It's a great show.

I saw them in September 1990 and it was lousy, and depressing.

Too bad, 'cus this is fabulous, a real rebuttal to those who insist they sucked by this time. These folks cannot have actually listened to this.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:51am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

3-29-90 is a classic. I saw them in July '90 (7-16, Buffalo) and it was a good show. Does it stand up to '72-74? No, but I had a blast and I still give a whirl every now and again.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Which one is Without a Net? I listen to that frequently in the car; I repeat the Walkin' Blues-Althea obsessively.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

It is a compilation from 89-90. This is from wikipedia:

"Feel Like A Stranger" recorded at Hampton Coliseum, Hampton, Virginia on October 9, 1989

"Victim or the Crime" recorded at Brendan Byrne Arena, East Rutherford , NJ on October 15, 1989

"Cassidy" recorded at The Spectrum, Philadelphia on October 19, 1989

"Bird Song" recorded at Great Western Forum, Inglewood, California on December 9, 1989

"Let It Grow" recorded at Capital Centre, Landover, Maryland on March 14, 1990

"Walkin' Blues" and "Althea" recorded at Capital Centre on March 15, 1990

"Mississippi Half-Step Uptown Toodleloo" recorded at Copps Coliseum, Hamilton, Ontario on March 21, 1990

"One More Saturday Night" recorded at Knickerbocker Arena, Albany, New York on March 24, 1990

"Looks Like Rain" recorded at Nassau Coliseum, Uniondale, New York on March 28, 1990

"Eyes of the World" recorded at Nassau Coliseum on March 29, 1990

"Help on the Way/Slipknot!/Franklin's Tower" recorded at Nassau Coliseum on March 30, 1990

"China Cat Sunflower/I Know You Rider" and "Dear Mr. Fantasy" recorded at The Omni, Atlanta on April 1, 1990

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 26, 2010 12:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Oh, I see. I suppose that's all in the liner notes so sorry to make you go dig up the information! I had not realized it was not all one show.

a shame - it seems I saw them just a few weeks too late in '90, they seem to have been really cooking for the previous year.

This post was modified by ringolevio on 2010-07-26 19:14:55

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 26, 2010 12:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

I must chime into to say that this is far too many posts on 90s era material...if I were running things around here, I would require that a nonDEAD, possibly CREAM related post be inserted after every five of this sort. I am shocked to find elb going to such lengths on the topic (since you admitted you liked it--right thing to do, as elb noted--and are a relative newbie, you get a pass).

See? I can still be a judgmental old bastard. I may have to rethink my take on this micah kid as well; "shows we attended" are always problematic...just ask the "critics of the reviewers" subcommittee.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jul 26, 2010 1:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

I believe I mentioned Cream in this thread!! Although I did not babble on and on about Jack so maybe that doesn't count in the former PM's book.

I will admit that Without a Net has a soft spot with me. From 1995-2005 when i didn't listen to very much GD, Without a Net was the CD that I would play. I had just started spinning American Beauty right before i discovered this place.


This post was modified by elbow1126 on 2010-07-26 20:19:55

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 26, 2010 2:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

el , I had a similar self exile period , congruent with your time . It was all too much .
The Eyes from WAN is a classic . One of the most requested by my youngest ( 9 ) , and bonus , he sings along too . I secretly watch him sometimes . ( God forbid if I was to openly watch him sing . )

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jul 26, 2010 5:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

I am not sure why i left it behind. I think part of it was my life was changing a lot starting in '95 with kids and then moving to a new town in '96.

As for Net, I remember in '91 while in grad school i was staying with some friends in a cabin and i put it on. They all were familiar with the Dead but it was in their past. When Eyes came on one of them said, "wow this is like grateful dead for grown ups."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 26, 2010 1:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Yeah. I can certainly live without Dear Mr. Fantasy and that stuff, but the Althea on that album is pristine, surreal.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 26, 2010 1:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

LOL but what if I get bolder about admitting to liking 90's shows? And how long do I have to be a newbie?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 26, 2010 1:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Don't you always want to be one? I think of the term with affection (ahem...hold the comments, eh Dan?) as it means you've graduated from "unknown" to regular, JG or some such rank. Better than "sweetums", right? I got in big trouble for that one...

If you want me to call you a "grey haired (har) old regular", with a variety of age related ailments, like Dire and elb, not to mention, old man Rob, I'll try to change over...your call.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 26, 2010 6:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

well one doesn't have to be OLD to not be a newbie on the forum. I would like my cake and eat it too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 26, 2010 12:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

I really enjoyed the handful of shows I saw in the post-Brent 90s. I was so anxious beforehand about whether they'd just be awful, but was pleasantly surprised each time. I don't know how the shows would hold up to listening now; I haven't listened to them on the archive. Maybe it was just that I was so happy to see the boys again, or maybe my trepidation made so-so shows seem good. But I'd like to think that the 90s have wonderful moments that may pale in comparison to other years, but are still pretty darned hot. I hope that's true, anyway ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BataviaSparky Date: Jul 25, 2010 5:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81? - retort - 68 or 82?

Both are special in their own ways. 69 tends to be repetitive, yet features some of the most ferocious jamming of any year. If I had to nix one, I would probably keep 69 over 81, because I would still have 82 - one of my personal favorite years!

What about 68 vs. 82?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BornEasement Date: Jul 25, 2010 5:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Did you say something?

Oh I'm sorry, I couldn't hear because 1977 was blasting in my ears!

:)

http://www.archive.org/details/gd77-11-04.moore.jupile-weiner.15208.sbeok.shnf

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: clementinescaboose Date: Jul 25, 2010 10:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

"69 tends to be repetitive, yet features some of the most ferocious jamming of any year."

i'd say i only agree with the last half of that statement. though much of the jamming/setlists are in similar context, the more i have listened to this period (i.e. 67-70 primal dead era) the more the jams tend to differentiate themselves. garica does tend to dominate many of the jams, but i feel his creatvity in them is just endless...here's a great example of some gorgeous playing in 'He Was A Friend Of Mine', a song i've really been enjoying recently:

http://www.archive.org/details/gd69-05-31.sbd.oleynick.76.sbeok.shnf

and while i do fire up some '81 now and then, '69 will always be one of my very favorite years!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 25, 2010 11:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Hey CC .

I would trade all my shows ( '87 - '95 ) for some of this repetition of '69 . All day , and nighttime long .
Each era has it's own magic , and I tend to let folks like what they like . I mean , a lot of this attraction has an emotional component , and who am I ?
However there are some things we can quantify .
'69 blows '77 , '81 , '82 and most all other years away . By a wide margin . It's up there w/ '68 for example .
Now each year has its epic(s) . Lots of '77 fans , cool . '81 , best NYE show ? A good one anyways . '82 , F-R-O-S-T .

Here are some Prime Grade A+ '69 cuts ,

http://www.archive.org/details/gd69-04-05.sbd.miller.18701.sbesok.shnf

and dhMonte on transfer here ,

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1969-04-23.sbd.barry.patched-fixed.98927.flac16

And that is just a few in April .

edit - the link to 4-5 is fickle about working .

This post was modified by micah6vs8 on 2010-07-26 06:22:34

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SkyDawg Date: Jul 26, 2010 12:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Hey micah!
Check out this '69 show... It will put a smile on yer face brother! Very loose show. Classic!

http://www.archive.org/details/gd69-05-31.sbd.oleynick.76.sbeok.shnf

When I think of "best years" or "best shows" I tend to favor '68, '69' '70 and '72-'74; particularly the "Pigpen Years" from day one through Europe '72. Bound to start a disagreement I know, and I don't mean to. It's only my opinion. Others mileage may vary..

This post was modified by SkyDawg on 2010-07-26 07:28:40

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Street Pig ! Date: Jul 26, 2010 3:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

69-74 cannot compare to ANY other years Da boyz were bursting with creativity, young energetic and willing to jam out!

Attachment: 1969_2Bdead.jpg
Attachment: 19700214_2194.preview_thumb.jpeg
Attachment: 19690212_2192.preview.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 26, 2010 6:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Hurts Me Too on there is great.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: clementinescaboose Date: Jul 25, 2010 11:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

micah6vs8:

those are definitly some great pics, the 4/5 show is one of my favorites of '69 (or any year for that matter), and i have just recently discovered the 4/23 show...what a gem. where else are you gonna find a St. Steve>It's A sin>St. Steve for goodness sake!?

and i would personally trade my 2 dead shows (sans Jerry) for anything from 87-95, but it's all relative i guess ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 26, 2010 9:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

CC , no deal . The exchange rate doesn't work well in your favor . It is like Weimar Republic , currency wise , not in your favor . ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 26, 2010 10:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Not even two shows? Oh, well, he's making a deal with me, anyway. You may beat me out on the 60s-early 70s, though, cuz you're offering ALL your shows. Neither of us have had takers, though. Dang. Someone's hoarding some early era shows, I think, like sugar or nylons in WWII ... stashing them in coffee cans, waiting for the prices to go up ...

The lack of takers may inadvertently answer the question of 81 vs 69, though :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

I think I am in the position of CC , on trying to trade my shows for some '67 -'70 .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Jul 26, 2010 11:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

It's User Unknown. I once tried to trade 10-31-91 for any of his pre-1975 shows and he flatly rejected me.

I agree, the younger set is carrying weak currency. Perhaps if I had offered some 1991 JGB, but honestly, I'm not willing to part with those memories.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 26, 2010 12:24pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Well, I'll up the ante. I'll trade a Raven Space for an acid test, if anyone's got a spare one lying around. You won't lose the memories, cuz what would you remember anyway, right? I promise I'll go well-prepared, with a tape deck, so everyone can share. Isn't that appealing now?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: clementinescaboose Date: Jul 27, 2010 12:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

but at least i know i've got one deal in the works tho...now, where is that time machine??

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 27, 2010 10:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

We are both going to need that time machine , CC

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: clementinescaboose Date: Jul 27, 2010 12:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

yes micah i think you've got some pesos you're trying to unload ;)

c'mon i'll even throw in some Phil and friends, ratdog and about a dosen DSO shows. eh? eh? cause you know i can't do this all day...



This post was modified by clementinescaboose on 2010-07-27 07:54:56

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 26, 2010 6:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

OK, it's a deal. You can have two of mine from the 87-95 era for the Dead sans Jerry, since I didn't get to see those. I get to keep my 78-85, though. Got some good ones, but I'm saving up to trade for some 60s and early 70s :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: Jul 26, 2010 6:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

Well, to me you are almost talking about 2 different bands : The band that evolved into the psychedelic beast of 68-69, then the more song oriented band that came after , and went to the end . Most interviews I have seen/heard with Garcia, he wasn't too happy with the writing of the pre-Workingman's period, it was like a "prelude" . Now, like most of us , I love that stuff, but I think something past 69, more honestly represents the band .
Another case could be made for dividing it roughly 66-80, where every year the band sounds quite different ( new material all the time, changing of band members equipment helped ), and post 80 , where the change is slower . I like the whole history, but that 66 >early Brent period I prefer .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 26, 2010 10:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 69 or 81?

I agree with you, which is partly why, though I love the early 80s, I'd pick 69 over 81. It's not just the energy, drive and intensity; it's also that there are lots more years that are roughly "like 81" than "like 69." It's almost two different bands; the later is present in the earlier, but we can only hear it after the fact.